• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Would you fly on a Boeing 737 Max?

scaramanga said:
I guess you don't know this because your friend's son is type rated on one particular aircraft, but all large passenger aircraft have long lists of what Boeing call memory items. These are sets of procedures that have to be memorised and are to be followed in any matching circumstance.

That's how passenger aviation works across all manufacturers and all (good) airlines. Note, some airlines are less picky than others about their pilots memorising these memory procedures, as recent events have shown.
Click to expand...

Another GARBAGE pilot.
Where are the good ones. In the Middle East.
Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, Turkish.
Or the far East with Singapore, Thai, Etc. ????
 
scaramanga said:
Mainly the good ones are based in the US and Europe. Australia are good too.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely.
The airlines I mentioned above are HEAD & SHOULDERS above any US, European or Australian airlines.
You probably haven't used them because you have this mindset about these airlines.
I used to and still travel regularly to the US, Europe and off course the Middle East and Far East.
I ALWAYS use these airlines. They have newer planes, better crew and service.
Their airport are something to behold.
You are comparing WORLD CLASS airlines to some GARBAGE ones like BA, Air France, etc.
SAD
 
Kenyan Spur said:
I disagree completely.
The airlines I mentioned above are HEAD & SHOULDERS above any US, European or Australian airlines.
You probably haven't used them because you have this mindset about these airlines.
I used to and still travel regularly to the US, Europe and off course the Middle East and Far East.
I ALWAYS use these airlines. They have newer planes, better crew and service.
Their airport are something to behold.
You are comparing WORLD CLASS airlines to some GARBAGE ones like BA, Air France, etc.
SAD
Click to expand...
I've flown on a few airlines from the Middle East - the service on all of them has been excellent.

That's got nothing to do with the level of training and prerequisite hours their pilots have. It's got nothing to do with their maintenance schedules, or the quality of their ground crew. It's got nothing to do with in-role professional development, etc.

Yes they're great to fly (Etihad 1st Class is significantly better than any other airline I've flown), they're also a fudgetonne safer than Lion Air. Other than a couple of exceptions, their pilot training standards are not quite what they are in the US and Europe.
 
Last edited:
Scara,
Both Boeing & the FAA have admitted that there were problems with the MACS system.
That is why they are installing 2 sensors rather than 1.
Also the are updating the flawed software.

Here is some reading material for you over the next few days.
I doubt that you can claim that these reports are from GARBAGE publications.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/11/boeing-737-max-plane-faa-regulators-crash-risk

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50750746

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/...ly-higher-crash-risk-faa-concluded/index.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/internal-faa-review-saw-high-risk-of-737-max-crashes-11576069202

https://www.pulselive.co.ke/bi/life...ax-to-fly-sooner-even-as-some-airline/815n8h3
 
Kenyan Spur said:
Scara,
Both Boeing & the FAA have admitted that there were problems with the MACS system.
That is why they are installing 2 sensors rather than 1.
Also the are updating the flawed software.

Here is some reading material for you over the next few days.
I doubt that you can claim that these reports are from GARBAGE publications.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/11/boeing-737-max-plane-faa-regulators-crash-risk

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50750746

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/...ly-higher-crash-risk-faa-concluded/index.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/internal-faa-review-saw-high-risk-of-737-max-crashes-11576069202

https://www.pulselive.co.ke/bi/life...ax-to-fly-sooner-even-as-some-airline/815n8h3
Click to expand...
I've never claimed there was nothing wrong with the 737 - if that's the impression you've taken from my posts then you need to read them again more carefully.

My claims are:
  • All major aircraft go to market with flaws that are fixed at a later date
  • It's only under the huge number of real world hours these aircraft gain that we can see all of the flaws
  • Under sufficient levels of pilot training, these flaws are not insurmountable
  • None of the countries known for having high levels of pilot training have an airline that has crashed a 737 for this reason
  • Two countries with incredibly poor aviation standards have airlines that have crashed 737s.
 
scaramanga said:
I've flown on a few airlines from the Middle East - the service on all of them has been excellent.

That's got nothing to do with the level of training and prerequisite hours their pilots have. It's got nothing to do with their maintenance schedules, or the quality of their ground crew. It's got nothing to do with in-role professional development, etc.

Yes they're great to fly (Etihad 1st Class is significantly better than any other airline I've flown), they're also a fudgetonne safer than Lion Air. Other than a couple of exceptions, their pilot training standards are not quite what they are in the US and Europe.
Click to expand...

These airlines poach the BEST pilots from around the world.
I know a few experienced ones from BA, Lufthansa, KLM etc.
They are paid a lot more than what they can get in Europe.
4 of the pilots from the ex European Airlines have built beautiful villas in the same Beach Estate that I live in.
Next to the Indian Ocean.
 
scaramanga said:
I've never claimed there was nothing wrong with the 737 - if that's the impression you've taken from my posts then you need to read them again more carefully.

My claims are:
  • All major aircraft go to market with flaws that are fixed at a later date
  • It's only under the huge number of real world hours these aircraft gain that we can see all of the flaws
  • Under sufficient levels of pilot training, these flaws are not insurmountable
  • None of the countries known for having high levels of pilot training have an airline that has crashed a 737 for this reason
  • Two countries with incredibly poor aviation standards have airlines that have crashed 737s.
Click to expand...

You haven't read those article have you?
They CLEARLY claim it was not business as usual. With a few flaws.
These planes had MAJOR flaws, and that is why they have been grounded for close to a year.
Even your blue eyed airlines are not flying them.
WHEN HAS THIS HAPPENED BEFORE ??????
 
Kenyan Spur said:
You haven't read those article have you?
They CLEARLY claim it was not business as usual. With a few flaws.
These planes had MAJOR flaws, and that is why they have been grounded for close to a year.
Even your blue eyed airlines are not flying them.
WHEN HAS THIS HAPPENED BEFORE ??????
Click to expand...
The one and only reason and 737s have been grounded is the totally out of proportion press response by those completely unequipped to properly understand or comment on the situation.

That happens sometimes - especially in industries that are highly technical and competitive. Journalists just don't know how to filter junk from fact and so they end up creating a sensational story that the public believes because they're not equipped to properly understand either.
 
Kenyan Spur said:
These airlines poach the BEST pilots from around the world.
I know a few experienced ones from BA, Lufthansa, KLM etc.
They are paid a lot more than what they can get in Europe.
4 of the pilots from the ex European Airlines have built beautiful villas in the same Beach Estate that I live in.
Next to the Indian Ocean.
Click to expand...
Some of those airlines do, yes. But those are commercial decisions, not national rules and regulations. The best airlines in the Middle East and Far East are very safe, the worst aren't.

Where there's a massive dividing line, is that even the worst UK and US airlines are extremely safe.
 
scaramanga said:
Some of those airlines do, yes. But those are commercial decisions, not national rules and regulations. The best airlines in the Middle East and Far East are very safe, the worst aren't.

Where there's a massive dividing line, is that even the worst UK and US airlines are extremely safe.
Click to expand...

The underlying issue with the Max is that commercial decisions took precedence over safety considerations.

1. Instead of building a whole new aircraft to accommodate larger more efficient engines a workaround to save money was found. All the problems stem from this money over all else approach. Which is clearly now shown to be a false economy.

2. Rather than costly re-training for pilots Boeing tried to make out the Max was just an iteration and used MCAS software to cover up fundamental differences with how the plane flew. They didn't even tell pilots about MCAS!!! A system that overrides pilot input!

3. Questions linger re. Boeing's cost-focused production methods. Outsourcing and staff working practices have sown doubt into the quality of their manufacturing. When proud, loyal production line managers are emailing senior management saying "I would not want my family flying on these planes" then there is something wrong. The MCAS flaws only surfaced because the angle of attack sensors on 2 planes failed. There were only about 200 Max planes flying. That is a high failure rate. This suggests the warnings made by the people on the factory floor were valid.
 
SpurMeUp said:
The underlying issue with the Max is that commercial decisions took precedence over safety considerations.

1. Instead of building a whole new aircraft to accommodate larger more efficient engines a workaround to save money was found. All the problems stem from this money over all else approach. Which is clearly now shown to be a false economy.

2. Rather than costly re-training for pilots Boeing tried to make out the Max was just an iteration and used MCAS software to cover up fundamental differences with how the plane flew. They didn't even tell pilots about MCAS!!! A system that overrides pilot input!

3. Questions linger re. Boeing's cost-focused production methods. Outsourcing and staff working practices have sown doubt into the quality of their manufacturing. When proud, loyal production line managers are emailing senior management saying "I would not want my family flying on these planes" then there is something wrong. The MCAS flaws only surfaced because the angle of attack sensors on 2 planes failed. There were only about 200 Max planes flying. That is a high failure rate. This suggests the warnings made by the people on the factory floor were valid.
Click to expand...
All businesses have to find a balance between safety and cost. Boeing does, its competitors do, both of our businesses do too.

I'm sure Boeing could make a plane that's entirely foolproofed and safe in the hands of anyone - no matter how untrained. The company would likely fold the next day due to the overspend.
 
scaramanga said:
All businesses have to find a balance between safety and cost. Boeing does, its competitors do, both of our businesses do too.

I'm sure Boeing could make a plane that's entirely foolproofed and safe in the hands of anyone - no matter how untrained. The company would likely fold the next day due to the overspend.
Click to expand...

I guess that is just it. Boeing smashed through that balance between safety and cost. By moving the dial too far onto saving money, they have put the whole company in jeopardy. Certain industries that deal with vulnerable people or have people's lives in their hands have a lower threshold for cost-cutting. A manufacturer of planes should live by its safety record. There is only one competitor so there is plenty of work for both Airbus and Boeing. Boeing will need to reset its whole culture and re-build trust.
 
SpurMeUp said:
I guess that is just it. Boeing smashed through that balance between safety and cost. By moving the dial too far onto saving money, they have put the whole company in jeopardy. Certain industries that deal with vulnerable people or have people's lives in their hands have a lower threshold for cost-cutting. A manufacturer of planes should live by its safety record. There is only one competitor so there is plenty of work for both Airbus and Boeing. Boeing will need to reset its whole culture and re-build trust.
Click to expand...
Or, the airlines who bought the aircraft smashed through that balance by not properly training their pilots, ignoring clear warnings from previous pilots of malfunctions, employing groundmonkeys who (possibly) drag fuel hoses over sensors and allowing pilots to fly with 1st Officers who have fewer hours than I do!
 
1st Officers who have fewer hours than I do!

This your Captain Scara Manga speaking

Welcome abroad Timbuktu Airlines Flight 000 to Somalia.
 
Kenyan Spur said:
1st Officers who have fewer hours than I do!

This your Captain Scara Manga speaking

Welcome abroad Timbuktu Airlines Flight 000 to Somalia.
Click to expand...
I'm barely even rated for solo flight, I'm not night rated and I'm not even close to being able to take commercial passengers.

Yet Ethiopian Airlines allows 1st officers to carry 174 passengers with fewer hours than I have.
 
scaramanga said:
I'm barely even rated for solo flight, I'm not night rated and I'm not even close to being able to take commercial passengers.

Yet Ethiopian Airlines allows 1st officers to carry 174 passengers with fewer hours than I have.
Click to expand...

Interesting ! How many hours do you have?
 
Production has been halted according to my Son in-law!
His brother is a BA techie
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back